Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 03 - Vercide Vs Hernandez - Digest

    Uploaded by

    annmiranda
    180 views2 pages
    Valencides Vercide filed a case against Daria Lagas Galleros for recovery of possession of land. The judge dismissed the case citing that disputes over land must be filed in the barangay where the land is located. However, the parties live in different municipalities, so barangay conciliation was not necessary. The judge erred in dismissing the case and showed ignorance of the law that exempts cases where parties live in different municipalities from barangay conciliation. The Supreme Court ruled that the judge was grossly ignorant of the law and violated her duty to correctly apply the law.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    03_vercide vs hernandez_digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Valencides Vercide filed a case against Daria Lagas Galleros for recovery of possession of land. The judge dismissed the case citing that disputes over land must be filed in the barangay where the land is located. However, the parties live in different municipalities, so barangay conciliation was not necessary. The judge erred in dismissing the case and showed ignorance of the law that exempts cases where parties live in different municipalities from barangay conciliation. The Supreme Court ruled that the judge was grossly ignorant of the law and violated her duty to correctly apply the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    180 views2 pages

    03 - Vercide Vs Hernandez - Digest

    Uploaded by

    annmiranda
    Valencides Vercide filed a case against Daria Lagas Galleros for recovery of possession of land. The judge dismissed the case citing that disputes over land must be filed in the barangay where the land is located. However, the parties live in different municipalities, so barangay conciliation was not necessary. The judge erred in dismissing the case and showed ignorance of the law that exempts cases where parties live in different municipalities from barangay conciliation. The Supreme Court ruled that the judge was grossly ignorant of the law and violated her duty to correctly apply the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    VALENCIDES VERCIDE v. JUDGE PRISCILLA T.

    HERNANDEZ
    AM No. MTJ-00-1265, 06 April 2000

    FACTS:

    Petitioners Valencides Vercide and his wife filed against private respondent Daria
    Lagas Galleros for recovery of possession of a piece of land located in Upper
    Centro, Tudela, Misamis Occidental.

    Respondent Galleros is a resident of the same municipality, while petitioners are


    residents of Dipolog City. Because of this fact, the case was filed in court without
    prior referral to the Lupong Tagapamayapa.

    Public respondent Judge Priscilla T. Hernandez of Municipal Circuit Trial Court,


    Clarin and Tudela, Misamis Occidental, dismissed the case without prejudice to
    the prosecution of the counterclaim pleaded by the private respondent in her
    answer, citing P.D. No. 1508, stating that all disputes which involve real property
    or any interest therein shall be brought in the barangay where the real property
    or any part thereof is situated.

    Motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners alleging that PD No. 1508
    has been repealed by Section 409(c) of R.A. No. 7160, stating that recourse to
    barangay conciliation proceedings is not necessary where the parties do not
    reside in the same municipality or city or in adjoining barangays.

    Said motion was dismissed by respondent judge; hence, this petition charging her
    of grave abuse of authority and ignorance of the law.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the respondent judge gravely erred in dismissing the complaint
    for failure to satisfy the barangay conciliation proceedings, despite the fact the
    parties do not reside in the same municipality or city?

    RULING:

    Yes, respondent showed patent ignorance, if not disregard of Supreme Court's


    rulings on the jurisdiction of the Lupong Tagapamayapa by her erroneous
    quotations of the provisions of the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules
    implementing R.A. No. 7160. While a judge may not be held administratively
    accountable for every erroneous order or decision he renders, his error may be so
    gross or patent that he should be administratively disciplined for gross ignorance
    of the law and incompetence.

    In this case, respondent at first cited P.D. No. 1508, as basis of her action. When
    her attention was called to the fact that this had been repealed by Section 409(c)
    of R.A. No. 7160, respondent, who obviously was more intent in justifying her
    previous order than correcting her error, quoted out of context the provisions of
    the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules implementing the Katarungang
    Pambarangay provisions of R.A. No. 7160. She thus violated Canon 3 of the Code
    of Judicial Conduct which provides that "In every case, a judge shall endeavor
    diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan
    interest, public opinion or fear of criticism."

    Contrary to respondent's interpretation, it is clear even from the Katarungang


    Pambarangay Rules that recourse to barangay conciliation proceedings is not
    necessary where the parties do not reside in the same municipality or city or in
    adjoining barangays. Rule VI of the same states in pertinent part:
    By: Atty. Ana C. Miranda
    Alternative Dispute Resolution
    SECTION 2. Subject matters for settlement. - All disputes may be the subject of
    proceedings for amicable settlement under these rules except the following
    enumerated cases:

    xxx

    (f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different


    cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each
    other and the parties thereto to agree to submit their differences to
    amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;

    Her insistence on her own interpretation of the law can only be due either to an
    ignorance of this Court's ruling or to an utter disregard thereof. The Court
    believed that it was simply due to gross ignorance which, nevertheless, is
    inexcusable.

    By: Atty. Ana C. Miranda


    Alternative Dispute Resolution

    You might also like